Meditation & Temptation

[Nemo121]

There's really not much point given the swerving off course that's occurred.

[herwin]

My exposure to this subject was initially via the Scotts, and later some discussions with Simpkin. The Scotts made the point that to understand Soviet Military Doctrine, one had to understand Marxism. Simpkin wasn't quite as doctrinaire, but he did emphasise the role of tempo in mobile battle. All this was at least a decade before Glantz, et al., and limited by the availability of primary sources at that time.

The influence of the Scotts on the game is seen in the 1-1 becomes 2-1 rule, which was the right way to go, but a bit ham-handed in its mechanism. What was actually going on was the substitution of mass for combat skill and cohesion, and the creation of specialist units at all levels, instead of combat teams. Note these factors interact non-linearly, so the combat model in the game has difficulty handling them. The mission of the shock army was to break through the depth of the German defence more rapidly that the Germans could react, reinforce, and counter-attack. Once the tank-infantry force had penetrated the defence, the tank army was released to penetrate as rapidly as possible into the depth of the German position--Triandafillov and Tukhachevsky's deep battle doctrine. Red Army force designators were based on combat power taking into account tempo, so a tank army was basically a Western/German armoured/panzer corps. In game terms, these units moved faster than their opponents could project zones of control. None of this treacle we see in the game. To block them, the Germans had to deploy mobile units or hold urban zones. To release them, the Red Army learned it needed to use mass, but the goal was always to transition to a deep battle.

During the Cold War, the Soviets continued to plan as if WWIII would be WWII, but with a difference--chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons would be deployed from the beginning and would function in the same way as shock armies in WWII, so that the deep battle would start immediately. They also had developed units with an order of magnitude more mobility than tanks--designating two echelons above their actual size--whose role was to move out even faster.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
I'd like to invite anyone and everyone to comment - except for FatR as usual. I don't believe he has any role to play in adult, reasoned discussion until he can apologise for his behaviour.

Your arrogance is pretty hilarious. But don't worry, it would have been quite stupid to pollute my mind with information that comes from a source I consider entirely dishonest, so I'm not going to even read your posts unless I'm paid for it.

[Cribtop]

As I commented in one of Nemo's previous AARs, I think it is important for much of the board to acknowledge that we are in many cases Westerners of one stripe or another who, knowingly or unknowingly, adhere to NATO doctrine. NATO doctrine in turn descends from German WWII doctrine in many cases and emphasizes the need to win the imagined war in western Europe with a "quality not quantiy" approach (in part due to necessity given the sheer size of the Red Army) and in time to avert overrun by the Soviet horde, which then leaves the West in the unenviable position of accepting defeat or resorting to nuclear weapons, with the attendant risk of civilization destroying strategic nuclear exchange.

NATO primarily envisioned victory through the application of force multipliers, the most important of which was the hope that air superiority and then air supremacy could be applied decisively. Other force multipliers included naval superiority, and, with the advent of the M1 Abrams, the belief that our tanks had a qualitative edge. As an aside, this is IMHO the main reason the first Iraq war was so one sided. It was war on a desert tabletop against a mechanized opponent using outdated Red Army equipment with little hope of contesting air superiority and poor to terrible command & control capabilities. In short, it was a dream scenario in which to employ NATO doctrine.

Consider how different NATO doctrine is from US Army WWII practice, where large numbers of inferior AFVs, backed by hordes of artillery, were used to win attritional battles against the Germans (Patton must be seen as an exception to this and in fact here we see the germ of his disagreements with Ike, Monty and the rest of the Allied High Command).

All of this is a long-winded effort to make those of us who play AE and descend from a NATO tradition to recognize that many of us seek to win without the "inelegant" slog of attritional warfare and to understand the mental limitations to creative thought in AE these limits can impose if we aren't thinking broadly. If Scenario 2 has done us any good, it is that it presents the Allied player with a situation (the large Japanese air force with trained pilots) where he has to think through when and where to accept and decline battle and to consider where he wishes to seek attritional exchanges and where he shouldn't do so.

[Canoerebel]

I think Cribtop passed out.  He probably hyperventilated by absorbing so many big words and not being able to get them back out of his respiration system quickly enough.
 
Like Cribtop, I'm going to read this interesting post.  But I will take it very carefully.  No more than two words or concepts that I don't understand at any one time.  Each time I reach two, I'll stop and refer to dictionaries, encylopedeas, etc.  I guesstimate that I'll be able to read 1.38 sentences at a time.
 
 

[Nemo121]

FatR,
Minds are like parachutes. They only function when open. You are a smart guy but your belief that you can be judge, jury and executioner without any evidence is not a sign of wellness. As I said before; you aren't welcome here. Please desist.

[Cribtop]

Dan, Dan. You know my capacity for ten dollar words is virtually limitless. I've just learned to occasionally hit the OK button in mid-post for fear of the forum monster eating hard work. [:D]

More on the stated topic of Deep Battle, I think a lot of us equate the doctrine with Blitzkrieg. However, as Nemo and Herwin point out, there are in fact significant differences in the origin and application of the two ideas. I for one would like to learn more about how Deep Battle differs from Blitzkrieg, and how Deep Battle is applied in a naval heavy geography like the Pacific Theater. In some ways, application seems obvious (with analogies to Island Hopping, bypassing, etc), but I suspect the real answer is more nuanced.

Finally, since Dan posted, I find it interesting but not surprising that a decent number of JFBs are American Southerners. As a breed, we are raised to be familiar with lost causes and thus I suspect the challenge of Japan strikes us as similar enough to the strategic situation faced by the Confederacy to be attractive on some deep level. PS Dan is an exception to this tendency and plays Allies because of his aversion to pilot training and the Japanese economy. [;)]

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Finally, since Dan posted, I find it interesting but not surprising that a decent number of JFBs are American Southerners. As a breed, we are raised to be familiar with lost causes and thus I suspect the challenge of Japan strikes us as similar enough to the strategic situation faced by the Confederacy to be attractive on some deep level.

That's very interesting and, to some extend, can be said also for those who live in those countries who have lost major wars in the last century.
It's not strange for ex that being an italian i tend to play only Confederates in American Civil War games or Cartaginians in Punic Wars game...

[Canoerebel]

And all this time I thought GreyJoy had lost the Pubic Wars, at least given his occasional tirades on the subject.
 
[:D]
 
Okay, I'm sorry!  Bad joke.  Bad, bad boy. 
 
P.S.  I really am interested in reading what Nemo and others have to say on this topic.  It makes fun (even if sometimes challenging) reading.  I learn alot from these men. 
 
P.P.S.  But the personal insults traded are totally unnecessary by both gents involved.

[Nemo121]

Well, I had a 2,038 word post here ( according to Word ) about the development of Deep Battle....

BUT I truly don't care to put myself in a position to be insulted or lumped in with FatR. CR There IS a world of difference between making unfounded accusations and pounting out how low someone is who makes unfounded accusations. I also think it is pretty abysmal to allow people in one thread to make attacks on someone without ever calling them on it and then to impugne me for my pretty damned mild response given the bullsh*t that FatR comes out with is beyond the pale IMO.

[Nemo121]

And again, really not much point.

[undercovergeek]

im reading, im not understanding it all but im reading - very interesting.

On a side note, or it seems to be the front note now! Nemo, for a very, very intelligent man, well learned and educated why do you let yourself get wound up about the guy? - i know some of the history, but obviously not all, i just dont understand this achilles heel to allow yourself to be tormented by this person? You have here a very well written thread that a lot of us want to read, TBH, if youd left out the FatR 'stay away' comment he probably wouldnt have bothered. Please continue.........................

[soticrandy]

Interesting reading so far, thank you Nemo.

Without distracting from this thread can someone PM me and point in the direction of some good books dealing with this topic?

[Nemo121]

3 reasons:

1. I value personal integrity. Personal integrity is a core value so when that "person" questions mine without any evidence it is extremely annoying to me.

2. I also value civic responsibility and the belief that we all need to stand up when we see wrong being done. So it really annoys me when people stand by when they see bullying here etc. The level of discourse in these forums has fallen precisely because people have left because they got bullied and the majority of the forum stood idly by. Then those same people post that they miss those individuals' contributions. Well, people reap what they sow.

3. If I didn't ask him not to post here then he could post claiming he thought he was welcome. My understanding from moderators is that it matters whether or not it was made clear from the beginning he wasn't welcome... so I made it clear as per my advice from forum moderators. Him posting doesn't bother me. You expect a dog to bark and whine after all. CR's post does because it creates some level of moral equivalency - which I disagree with. But that's for he and I to work out via PM.

Edited for purposes of clarity.

[DivePac88]

ORIGINAL: FatR

Your arrogance is pretty hilarious. But don't worry, it would have been quite stupid to pollute my mind with information that comes from a source I consider entirely dishonest, so I'm not going to even read your posts unless I'm paid for it.

You are a sad silly little person there FatR, if you have nothing other than garbage to add to someone-else's post. I would take your own advice, and stay out.

[undercovergeek]

well, my own personal opinion is youll be sadly missed...........

might i suggest the construction of a (god forgive me) 'steakhouse' style forum of your own to discuss these matters and attract those people who sadly left these forums but wish to discuss, read and contribute to AE type discussions away from this board?

[Canoerebel]

I think this is much ado about nothing, to be honest.  So far, only FatR has said anything negative about Nemo in this thread, and he is a source that is widely discounted and easily ignored by the vast majority of the forum.

I (accurately I think) pointed out that Nemo and FatR exchanged insults.

And now Nemo is going to take a sabbatical from the Forums? 

Nemo (incorrectly, I think) assumes that players are aware of all that has transpired between him and FatR (and a few others).  Many of us are not.  But, moreso, we know that Nemo is a smart man fully capable of defending himself.  None of us will stand idly by while a bully beats up on a weaker opponent, but here we often don't know the context behind various disagreements.  That makes us reluctant to step in, which we feel would only serve to add more players to a disagreement.  Besides, we know Nemo can handle his defense.

I have publicly stated previously that I found FatR's conduct reprehensible.  Nevertheless, I see no gain in starting out a very promising thread by publicly slapping him.  Nemo felt like he had to do so to clearly announce his desire for FatR to stay away, but I don't think it was the right way to go about it. 

[DivePac88]

Edit. -deleted

[GreyJoy]

Let's stick to the original thread guys...come on.

[Nemo121]

CR it was advised by moderators - as I've previously stated. Not to have done as I did would have been to go against the advice of moderators who were all very clear that asking him not to post was a crucial initial step in having them tell him not to post IF he did. Since a bear shits in the woods I knew he'd be posting and so I followed THEIR advice. If you have anything else to say to me you can say it via email.

As to a forum elsewhere. Believe me if there was interest I would consider it. I'm not sure that there would be interest though. Plus it would just be misrepresented as some sort of elitism and then I'd be attacked for it and then people could sit idly by going "OH I don't know all the details so I'll stand idly by."